Problem is, it's not really Google at fault here. If it was Google, they would have the same leverage Apple did when they told the carriers to take their crapware and fuck off. Google makes the OS but they don't make many of the phones. They are one level removed. It's up to HTC, Samsung, LG, etc to try to exert that pressure on the carriers and most don't have the leverage to do it. Samsung might, but they don't seem interested in using it.
Disabling domain devolution is not necessary and will break short-name resolution on domain joined machines where NetBIOS and WINS are disabled (which should be all of them if you like your sanity).
Indeed. I can see how you can create these coins by participating in a DDOS, but then what can you do with it? Who is going to accept is as payment for anything?
They are a proof of work, a modern day varmint pelt. You could set up a way to exchange them for bitcoin or another virtual currency paid for by the person or persons who wanted the DDOS in the first place. The "good" news is that botnets are cheap and plentiful right now, and thus so are DDOS attacks. This scheme wouldn't be worth it since each node would be lucky to earn more than a few fractions of a cent.
Yes, but really, YouTube Live truly isn't that bad as a delivery platform. As a matter of fact - it seems to be catching on relatively well EXCEPT for video game streaming. People are just used to going to Twitch for that.
Youtube Live isn't bad but they did that half-hearted game streaming launch last year (gaming.youtube.com) and it so far has been a huge flop. They just kind of threw it out there and forgot about it. Twitch needs a real competitor. Google fumbled it. Microsoft is really about the last hope for one now. God help us all.
If Google / YouTube can't make a dent in Twitch what's Microsoft gonna do?
To be honest, and not saying MS will succeed here, but Google has been half-assing new products for a few years now. It's like they have a severe case of corporate ADHD. I don't think we can use Google failing at something as a valid comparison anymore. They are not the Google they were in the early 2000's.
Go with us as a refreshing alternative. We are just as big nasty. But it is an alternative.
Unfortunately it's going to take a big company to mount any serious competition to Twitch. A big company other than Google who can't be bothered to no half-ass new products anymore.
If it is reasonably faster than 4G and technically feasible for providers and cell phone manufacturers it's legitimate. Who cares what the technology is or if there is a standard?
Well for one bad things can happen to consumers when companies try to jump out ahead of official standards. We've seen time and again where devices get put out before a standard is decided upon, only to be made obsolete when the standard is published and the device isn't compliant, and can't be made so with a firmware update.
Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting.
Well duh, I imagine most shooting victims are alive and breathing when they are shot!
In all seriousness though, he was shot in the back. He likely didn't know anything about the person who shot him, no matter what their motive was, if they didn't approach him after the shooting to rob him.
The actual mystery is why drove 300 miles not kilometres.
Because Brits aren't nearly as metric as they sometimes claim to be. For instance, they buy fuel in litres but they use MPG for fuel efficiency. And then there is that weird thing where they measure their own weight in relation to big rocks.
Who the heck actually participates in a census? And it is mandatory? You get fined? Is this common? You guys need to move to a civilized country like America.
It's mandatory in the US as well, although it hasn't been prosecuted since 1970. It's mandatory in virtually every country that has a census, including Canada, UK, France, Spain, and Ireland (where fines can go up to 44K euros).
13 U.S. Code 221 - Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85–207, 15, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94–521, 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2465.)
I kind of question if this wasn't the intended purpose all along. The reason is that it's not necessary for a site to see exact battery level and recharge time to know if they should present a low power site or now. Knowing battery life in bands of x% (0-10%, 11-20%, etc), or even just a preset level (in the HTML5 spec) that would trigger a battery low flag and maybe another that would show on AC power (so the site would know it could possibly ignore the low battery) would be enough. I can't believe the people involved in creating this spec didn't realize what it could be used for when they were writing it.
This is not possible with current ath9k chips (almost all of TP-Link 802.11n routers), firmware is uploaded to the chip by the driver. So there's no current way to rely on a "locked/trusted" firmware to restrict the operation.
I don't think anyone ever said it was possible with a specific chipset. Obviously if it's not, then a new chipset may be required. However Linksys, Asus, and now (maybe) TP-Link are all working on it so it's not, overall, impossible.
How is such a mandate any better than a ban? A free country should have neither...
It shouldn't be a blanket mandate for all manufacturers, and in this case it isn't for TP-Link either. However, this is part of a larger issue (TP-LINK sold out of compliance routers in violation of FCC rules) and as part of the settlement for that, they agreed to work with the community to allow 3rd party firmware while staying compliant with the new FCC rules, as well as other FCC rules they violated that brought the action in the first place. I'm sure there was some haggling involved and TP-Link probably used this condition to help reduce their fine ($200K as it stands now). It's something I assume the FCC asked for and TP-Link agreed to do as part of the settlement. I'm sure if they said no, the FCC would have settled with them anyway, just probably for a larger fine instead. In this case it's pretty much a win-win-win. TP-Link gets their fine reduced and gets some good publicity out of it, the FCC gets to show that they really didn't mean to ban 3rd party firmware and they get TP-Link in compliance, and the community gets another option for compliant routers they can flash with 3rd party firmware.
I mean, the regulation was meant to make manufacturers restrict users from changing radio parameters (turn off DFS, for instance). That was not possible with stock firmware, only with customized OpenWrt/LEDE. So, what's the point of the regulation, now, after this precedent? What difference does it make for the users or for TP-Link?
Essentially, it sounds like TP-Link will need to ensure that router firmware (ANY firmware, not just their own) can't make illegal adjustments to the radio parameters. This would probably mean a change to the hardware in some form to lock the radio down. Maybe a separate bit of firmware that just controls the radio and sits between the hardware and the main firmware.
She gets $400 million for what? She's asserting that other people were wronged, that she had zero stake (she let the images out for free), and that she thus somehow is owed $400 million?
Even if she licensed them for public use she is still the copyright owner of the images so she is the one that has the standing to sue for copyright infringement against Getty. The others could just sue to clarify their rights, stop legal actions against them, and maybe, if lucky, recover their legal costs. The photographer is the one in a position to extract a truly punitive judgement against Getty.
Our current level is solid black.....because programmers don't care about bugs, managers don't let them care, and our critical infrastructure is connected to the internet.
it's that guy opinion, not based on anything. windows store has a fraction of the market, with steam, origin, uplay, etc around.
the best way of running windows 10 is to use the LTSB version which doesn't have all that UWP crap.
shhhhh. Don't interrupt the circle jerk with logic and facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, it's not really Google at fault here. If it was Google, they would have the same leverage Apple did when they told the carriers to take their crapware and fuck off. Google makes the OS but they don't make many of the phones. They are one level removed. It's up to HTC, Samsung, LG, etc to try to exert that pressure on the carriers and most don't have the leverage to do it. Samsung might, but they don't seem interested in using it.
Can't wait for them to start yapping. What mental gymnastics will they use this time?
I don't think anyone is going to be able to beat your gold medal winning mental gymnastics on this one.
Disabling domain devolution is not necessary and will break short-name resolution on domain joined machines where NetBIOS and WINS are disabled (which should be all of them if you like your sanity).
Indeed. I can see how you can create these coins by participating in a DDOS, but then what can you do with it? Who is going to accept is as payment for anything?
They are a proof of work, a modern day varmint pelt. You could set up a way to exchange them for bitcoin or another virtual currency paid for by the person or persons who wanted the DDOS in the first place. The "good" news is that botnets are cheap and plentiful right now, and thus so are DDOS attacks. This scheme wouldn't be worth it since each node would be lucky to earn more than a few fractions of a cent.
for solid state drives. They are completely quiet.
All SSDs whine to some extent. The one I have in my laptop sounds like a regular HDD in a quiet room, and it definitely varies as data is written.
Yes, but really, YouTube Live truly isn't that bad as a delivery platform. As a matter of fact - it seems to be catching on relatively well EXCEPT for video game streaming. People are just used to going to Twitch for that.
Youtube Live isn't bad but they did that half-hearted game streaming launch last year (gaming.youtube.com) and it so far has been a huge flop. They just kind of threw it out there and forgot about it. Twitch needs a real competitor. Google fumbled it. Microsoft is really about the last hope for one now. God help us all.
If Google / YouTube can't make a dent in Twitch what's Microsoft gonna do?
To be honest, and not saying MS will succeed here, but Google has been half-assing new products for a few years now. It's like they have a severe case of corporate ADHD. I don't think we can use Google failing at something as a valid comparison anymore. They are not the Google they were in the early 2000's.
Go with us as a refreshing alternative. We are just as big nasty. But it is an alternative.
Unfortunately it's going to take a big company to mount any serious competition to Twitch. A big company other than Google who can't be bothered to no half-ass new products anymore.
If it is reasonably faster than 4G and technically feasible for providers and cell phone manufacturers it's legitimate. Who cares what the technology is or if there is a standard?
Well for one bad things can happen to consumers when companies try to jump out ahead of official standards. We've seen time and again where devices get put out before a standard is decided upon, only to be made obsolete when the standard is published and the device isn't compliant, and can't be made so with a firmware update.
Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting.
Well duh, I imagine most shooting victims are alive and breathing when they are shot!
In all seriousness though, he was shot in the back. He likely didn't know anything about the person who shot him, no matter what their motive was, if they didn't approach him after the shooting to rob him.
The actual mystery is why drove 300 miles not kilometres.
Because Brits aren't nearly as metric as they sometimes claim to be. For instance, they buy fuel in litres but they use MPG for fuel efficiency. And then there is that weird thing where they measure their own weight in relation to big rocks.
... and tortutious interference,
"You're honor, their DRM is interfering with my torture."
"You're honor that can't be right, DRM is torture!"
"Agreed, case dismissed."
... just like we expect people to have some basic awareness of geography or their own health.
Man, you better aim WAY higher than that for your baseline.
More like pay us $100, oh, and we need all that info anyway for the citation so if you could ahead and fill this form out....
Who the heck actually participates in a census? And it is mandatory? You get fined? Is this common? You guys need to move to a civilized country like America.
It's mandatory in the US as well, although it hasn't been prosecuted since 1970. It's mandatory in virtually every country that has a census, including Canada, UK, France, Spain, and Ireland (where fines can go up to 44K euros).
13 U.S. Code 221 - Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85–207, 15, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94–521, 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2465.)
I kind of question if this wasn't the intended purpose all along. The reason is that it's not necessary for a site to see exact battery level and recharge time to know if they should present a low power site or now. Knowing battery life in bands of x% (0-10%, 11-20%, etc), or even just a preset level (in the HTML5 spec) that would trigger a battery low flag and maybe another that would show on AC power (so the site would know it could possibly ignore the low battery) would be enough. I can't believe the people involved in creating this spec didn't realize what it could be used for when they were writing it.
Why on Earth are browsers revealing my battery status to random websites? Does Google dictate these changes in exchange for funding?
It was added to the HTML5 spec to allow sites to supply "low power" versions of their site to devices when their battery is low. Or so they say.
This is not possible with current ath9k chips (almost all of TP-Link 802.11n routers), firmware is uploaded to the chip by the driver. So there's no current way to rely on a "locked/trusted" firmware to restrict the operation.
I don't think anyone ever said it was possible with a specific chipset. Obviously if it's not, then a new chipset may be required. However Linksys, Asus, and now (maybe) TP-Link are all working on it so it's not, overall, impossible.
How is such a mandate any better than a ban? A free country should have neither...
It shouldn't be a blanket mandate for all manufacturers, and in this case it isn't for TP-Link either. However, this is part of a larger issue (TP-LINK sold out of compliance routers in violation of FCC rules) and as part of the settlement for that, they agreed to work with the community to allow 3rd party firmware while staying compliant with the new FCC rules, as well as other FCC rules they violated that brought the action in the first place. I'm sure there was some haggling involved and TP-Link probably used this condition to help reduce their fine ($200K as it stands now). It's something I assume the FCC asked for and TP-Link agreed to do as part of the settlement. I'm sure if they said no, the FCC would have settled with them anyway, just probably for a larger fine instead. In this case it's pretty much a win-win-win. TP-Link gets their fine reduced and gets some good publicity out of it, the FCC gets to show that they really didn't mean to ban 3rd party firmware and they get TP-Link in compliance, and the community gets another option for compliant routers they can flash with 3rd party firmware.
I mean, the regulation was meant to make manufacturers restrict users from changing radio parameters (turn off DFS, for instance). That was not possible with stock firmware, only with customized OpenWrt/LEDE. So, what's the point of the regulation, now, after this precedent? What difference does it make for the users or for TP-Link?
Essentially, it sounds like TP-Link will need to ensure that router firmware (ANY firmware, not just their own) can't make illegal adjustments to the radio parameters. This would probably mean a change to the hardware in some form to lock the radio down. Maybe a separate bit of firmware that just controls the radio and sits between the hardware and the main firmware.
On mars? Yes much better than a tree.
So their vodka distilleries and botnets got hit?
She gets $400 million for what? She's asserting that other people were wronged, that she had zero stake (she let the images out for free), and that she thus somehow is owed $400 million?
Even if she licensed them for public use she is still the copyright owner of the images so she is the one that has the standing to sue for copyright infringement against Getty. The others could just sue to clarify their rights, stop legal actions against them, and maybe, if lucky, recover their legal costs. The photographer is the one in a position to extract a truly punitive judgement against Getty.
Our current level is solid black.....because programmers don't care about bugs, managers don't let them care, and our critical infrastructure is connected to the internet.
Got to be agile bruh!
it's that guy opinion, not based on anything. windows store has a fraction of the market, with steam, origin, uplay, etc around. the best way of running windows 10 is to use the LTSB version which doesn't have all that UWP crap.
shhhhh. Don't interrupt the circle jerk with logic and facts.